IMHO something is only open source if it is controlled by those who release the open source code - FLAC is.

From an ideological point of view, you are correct. But from a practical - I.E, the end user's - point of view, it makes no difference who is releasing the sources, as long as they can decode the bitstreams.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Apr 12 2005, 23:03

--------------------

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:http://www.rarewares.org

Seems like Wavpack and FLAC are the most “green” out there. Too bad they're not very good at compression ratio…

Well, that depends.... If you use the x switch with Wavpack you can achive some mighty good compression, but it's mighty slow too....I recently compressed some improv disks with wavpack -hxmt and got results in the range of 30-40% of original wavs. Now I guess that's much due to the music; like much classical, improv is music with much "air" in it, as opposed to e.g. contemporay pop or metal, but still I found this quite impressive. It was veeeery slow, though, unlike wavpack at default settings, which is what's used for rjamorim's table.

--------------------

"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD" - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

The multichannel file choked iTunes and QuickTime, which I didn't expect. I know that lots of users work with multichannel files on Macs. The hi res file played fine, encoded fine, but the decoder output a 44.1 kHz stream (the original was 96 kHz).

--------------------

"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."—Aldous Huxley

Seems like Wavpack and FLAC are the most “green” out there. Too bad they're not very good at compression ratio…

Well, that depends.... If you use the x switch with Wavpack you can achive some mighty good compression, but it's mighty slow too....I recently compressed some improv disks with wavpack -hxmt and got results in the range of 30-40% of original wavs.

Well, that depends.... If you use the x switch with Wavpack you can achive some mighty good compression, but it's mighty slow too....I recently compressed some improv disks with wavpack -hxmt and got results in the range of 30-40% of original wavs.

QUOTE (shadowking @ Mar 8 2005, 03:35 PM)

-h by itself is comparable to Monkeys audio normal mode.

Are these swithes enabled by default? AFAIK, this comparison table is based on every encoder's default settings…

Are these swithes enabled by default? AFAIK, this comparison table is based on every encoder's default settings…

If i understood this right, and rjamorim has used it without specifying switches, then Wavpack just uses it's default settings. AFAIK neither -h nor -x are turned on by default. In Wavpacks pure lossless mode -h and -x are switches you can play with for that extra compression, at the cost of speed. The -h switch makes both encoding and decoding about twice as slow, the -x switch turns on asymmetrical mode and makes encoding very, very, veeery much slower, but don't hurt decoding speed. So -hx gives you Wavpacks best compression and slowest encoding.

--------------------

"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD" - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Actually, -hx6 would give you the best compression, as the -x switch alone will give you different parameters depending on the compression level.

QUOTE

This option accepts an optional numberic parameter from 1 to 6 that overrides the default amount of "extra" processing done. The defaults were choosen to provide the greatest "bang for the buck" and are -x6 for "fast" mode, -x4 for the normal mode and -x3 for the "high" mode.

Indeed. If the RockBox guys release their unofficial iRiver firmware with WavPack support, and if Kuniklo finishes the XMMS plugin, WavPack will be the only all-green format in the table.

I just edited the table. ALAC's open-sourceness becomes light green and it's not featuring multichannel and high resolution anymore since no implementation supports them. If QuickTime 7 adds these features, I'll change the table back.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 9 2005, 16:02

--------------------

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:http://www.rarewares.org

Few concerns about OptimFROG column:1. Why ReplayGain row says "no"? I have all my OFR files replaygained by fb2k, values are stored inside the file's APEv2 tags, and they get gained on replay, isn't it ReplayGain support?2. Pipe support row is blank, while "ofr.exe - --output %d" in fb2k's DiskWriter works, so I guess it supports pipes?3. Why Encoding & Decoding speed rows say "slow"? As Flexibility row says, it's very flexible. With default settings it's at least average, and surely can be fast with proper settings.

I always use Hans Heijden's lossless comparision to evaluate speed vs. efficiency, etc. By "slow", I consider codecs that encode at less than 10X real time in the default setting. Even in the fast setting, OptimFrog encodes slower than 10X...

And I chose to represent only the default setting because the table would become a mess if I tried to evaluate the efficiency of every setting. It's also the developer duty to make the default setting output the best "bang for the buck" for users.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Mar 16 2005, 01:40

--------------------

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:http://www.rarewares.org

Just want to add some details about LA to your great comparison table:

-tagging is possible (I'm using Tag.exe to add APE2 tags, the Winamp plugin can display them, the command line decoder ignores them)

-PIPE is supported (I'm using it in my small "la2mp3.bat" script - la.exe pipes decoded data to lame.exe)

Well I don't want to say that you lie but probably you're just little bit confused. I've tried MultiFrontend and LA Frontend with APEv1/APEv2 tags and also Foobar's Diskwriter Commandline Encoder with selected APEv2 tag and found that Winamp doesn't support APEv2 tags. Tried both 0.4 and 0.4b. Foobar does but it's more native Foobar functionality than support from format. Furthermore official documentation of LA says: ID3 v1.1 tagging support

Group: Members
Posts: 1047
Joined: 28-June 03
From: on the dock of the bay
Member No.: 7423

QUOTE (rjamorim @ Nov 26 2004, 05:14 AM)

FLACCONS- Compression efficiency not on par with other lossless codecs

------------------------

WavPackPROS- Good efficiency (not as good as Monkey's or OptimFrog, but not as bad as SHN or ALAC)

hmm, did you decide on a point where you call a codec not on par that lead to WavPack not falling into that category (i.e. everything above 58.0%)?considering the difference btw FLAC and WavPack is only 0.70% in default mode and FLAC and ALAC are also very close, the quoted statements look a bit irritating.I would suggest to change WavPack also to 'Compression efficiency not on par with other lossless codecs' or at least to remove the 'good efficiency' part.

hmm, did you decide on a point where you call a codec not on par that lead to WavPack not falling into that category (i.e. everything above 58.0%)?considering the difference btw FLAC and WavPack is only 0.70% in default mode and FLAC and ALAC are also very close, the quoted statements look a bit irritating.I would suggest to change WavPack also to 'Compression efficiency not on par with other lossless codecs' or at least to remove the 'good efficiency' part.

Good point. I based that mostly on a Garf's statement that is hidden in some other thread (JanS is working on the redirection)

BTW: It's important to mention that efficiency is not compression ratio. Efficiency is a relation between compression ratio and encoding speed.

I'll look into that issue further, based on Hans Heijden's findings, and edit the wiki if appropriate. The first post in this thread will soon be deleted in favour of the wiki article, so no point working on it any more.

Also: Yes, 58% is the line I drew to separate green compression to light green compression.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Apr 13 2005, 17:09

--------------------

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:http://www.rarewares.org

what about TTA and LPAC vs. FLAC and ALAC? both are either above or below the 58% mark and both are light green...

Oops, sorry about that. Actually 57% is the line.

I considering making 58% the line once, but that would result in too many dark green cells, so it wouldn't be useful for comparision purposes.

This way, it is more or less equilibrated: 4 dark green and 4 light green.

In the comparision, I replaced "Compression efficiency not on par with other lossless codecs" with "Relatively slow encoding" (that is, comparing to other codecs that compress much more at same speed). I think it's fairer towards FLAC. Do you agree?

--------------------

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:http://www.rarewares.org